Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

In article ,
Brent P wrote:
In article , Bill Baka wrote:

They still will have millions of tons of Sulfur to deal with after they
scrub it at the exhaust output. Maybe they could store it underground
somehow so it won't get into the air. It is an Element so it won't just
go away.

Sulfur is a useful element. It would just be sold those companies that
need it for the products they make. Just a few examples:
http://georgiagulfsulfur.com/uses.htm

The choice is burn it into CO2 (bad),

If I could do that, I'd spend my time turning lead into gold.
I think you meant SO2

It largely comes out as sulfur oxides already. If you could
efficiently reduce it you'd have your problem solved; if you've got
more elemental sulfur than you can use, you can just bury the stuff,
perhaps in some naturally sulfurous area.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article . net,
william welner wrote:
Have you been to NYC recently? The crime rare is way down.

Once gas gets to $10 per gallon, the people will wont solutions to cut their
dependence on oil.

People said that about $2 and $3 per gallon. For people to actually
want new solutions, they have to be superior than their current ones.

Cutting our dependence on oil will also have the impact of decreasing
pollution(global warming)

Not necessarily. Replacing energy from oil with energy from coal
makes pollution worse.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

william welner wrote:
It is my hope that Al Gore who is a border state native of TN will get the
Democrat Presidential Nomination, and get elected With a majority of
Democrats in both houses, who can push through the necessary reforms.

There is nobody else in my opinion.

Not with a good chance of winning.


He is the only candidate that can speak southern who has served in the army
in Viet Nam, thus is no draft dodger to be attacked by conservatives as a
weakling; he is well versed in global
warming and pollution, which he wrote a book about; and he is knowledgeable
about foreign relations and the military.

I read his book. Idealist for America, but somebody else may put it
into practice...


He like Tricky Dick Nixon who lost to JFK in 1960, took the loss very
gracefully and not as a sore loser. and came back to win in 1968 to win the
Presidency, Al Gore will also come back to win in 2008.

We sure need him. We can't afford to waste more time nor more resources
in "pacifying" Iraq.

Another solution is to make this (his ideas) happen somewhere else via
a revolution. Welcome to the Banana/Guarapo Revolution. Castro is old
and people is tired of living in the herd --as well as wary of the
jungle 90 miles away. So there's a need for...

THE GUARAPO REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote9

This may also take happen in desperate places like Haiti or Africa,
where their nature/people are endangered species. A Banana Revolution
is very fitting in those places.

For example this guy proposed...

RENE DUMONT is unique among experts. Third World leaders consult him on
their development plans, while international agencies hire him to knock
million-dollar aid programmes into shape. Hehasbeen received, though
not always welcomed, in more than 75 countries, arguing time and again
for the peasant farmer against the urban elite. A socialist believing
in small-scale enterprise but opposed to Soviet-style communism, he has
outraged marxists like Fidel Castro as well as Francophone Africa's
band of capitalist despots. For 15 years he has been a confidante of
Julius Nyerere - whose socialism comes closest to his own.

Dumont's rise into the ranks of world statesmen was as an academic.
Only once did he venture into politics: as `porte-drapeau' for the
French Ecology Movement, winning two per cent of the votes in the 1974
Presidential election. Otherwise he has remained an outsider:
influencing policy where he needn't face the consequences.

Although he retired in 1974, Dumont's health suffered and he had to
return to work. Now he spends more time than ever away from his Paris
home, travelling widely in the Third World, writing prodigiously,
freely criticising politicians and planners - and inviting criticism of
himself.

Dumont's views on development are well known. But he rarely discusses
his role as the endlessly critical outsider, serving up one-man recipes
for successful development. In this exclusive interview Christopher
Sheppard asked him about the private side of life as an expert.

At 76 years old,Rene Dumont is still a man in a hurry. As he guided me
from the metro station to his apartment overlooking the Bois de
Vincennes, I had to quicken my step. `Save energy' he admonished,
whisking me past the elevator and up the stairs.

Dumont's apartment is modestly proportioned, but richly furnished, the
desk littered with the raw materials of his next book. `Maldevelopment
in Latin America' will be his thirty-third. Number 32, L'Afrique
Etranglee was dubbed Dumont's `latest cry of anguish' by Le Monde, and
'Maldevelopment' may well be another one.

`The main problem in the Third World', argues Dumont, `is the
privileged urban minority in power.' Third World elites have long been
the butt of his criticism, but now it is their `suffocating'
bureaucracies which have become a personal target. His experience of
them is unique.

more...
http://www.newint.org/issue096/outsider.htm

In article ,
Wayne Pein wrote:
Mass transit typically does not save fuel. Surprising, but both private
cars and mass transit require roughly 3500 BTUs/passenger mile.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...ble_04_20.html

Oh, that's a beautiful chart.

The highlight for 2001:

Passenger car : 3557 BTU/passenger mile
Transit motor bus: 3698 BTU/passenger mile

And I doubt that takes into account the fact that taking a car is
almost always more direct than taking a bus.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...t_fotw221.html

Which shows rail, covering a wide range. Philadelphia light rail uses
5828 BTU/passenger mile, and heavy rail 4001 BTU/passenger mile.

Save energy: Close SEPTA.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Mike Kruger wrote:

2. Full buses going relatively short distances ARE fuel efficient. Where do
we see these conditions? In the densely populated areas of major cities. We
don't see these conditions in exurbia, and are likely never going to see
them. This likely means that, in the long term, exurbia will not be a great
place to live. Short term, though, they are building houses like crazy out
there.

Another vote for packing people like sardines, both at home and in transit.

Public transit isn't a panacea, it's a tool.

Public transit is welfare. For the poor (buses), middle class
(commuter rail) and rich (Amtrak) respectively (though roughly).
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article . net,
william welner wrote:
The issue of saving energy by comparing the energy efficiency including the
mileage and the number of passengers transported for Mass transit vs. the
automobile is not the total calculation used to determine the total energy
expended for each mode of transportation, which also includes the total
energy expended to build a freeway including the associated parking lots vs.
building a rail line for subways.

This is called "throwing up a smoke screen".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:49:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:22:03 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:23:34 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:
snip


Not allowed to get any oil sitting there for the taking right on our
Atlantic shelf. The environmentalists won't allow it.

The oil companies rather have everyone pay $75 for their $5 a bbl oil.

Just where are the oil companies getting this "$5 a bbl oil" from?

Saudi Arabia. How do you think they are making record profits if they
were just passing 'costs' on? If they were just passing increased costs
on, then their profits would be more or less flat. The profits reach
records because their cost for the oil has remained more or less the
same while the market price for the oil has increased.

Surely, you jest. You actually believe that /any/ oil company is
buying a barrel of Saudi crude for just $5?

That's the extraction cost.

Why would the Saudi's be taking just $5 for their oil?

They aren't getting $75 a barrel for it. There are generally contracts
and royalties that outline what the governments get.

Got news for you: Aramco was nationalized in 1974. The oil production
is all controlled by the Saudi's. They receive /no/ royalties. They
get /all/ of the barrel price for their crude.

Um read the article I cited. The oil fields are controlled by
nationalized companies, but they get royalties for the oil.

"Nationalized" companies are owned by the government. That's what
nationalized means. Yes, the companies get income from the oil they
produce, but since the company is owned by the government, it's the
government that gets that income..
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:40:49 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

It's amazing the power that these "environmentalists" hold. I'm confused,
though. I thought the Republican Party had both houses of the U.S.
Congress, along with the White House. In addition, they hold most
governorships and many state legislatures. How and where is it that these
evil "environmentalists" hold so much power? Or are the Republicans
"environmentalists"?

You are working from a false assumption: that a politician will always
(or even the majority of the time) vote according to his principles as
defined during his election campaign.
You ask how this can be, which wouild indicate that you are confused
about this. Yet, it is happening, so it must be visible even to those
who ask the same question.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On 2 Aug 2006 07:01:40 -0700, "donquijote1954"
wrote:


Bill Funk wrote:
I do it for show and tell. The tell is the 9 first points and the show
the 10th. I got to throw some satire in there, you know, since I'm
DonQuixote, no?

You'd do your agenda much more good by acting more rational.
If you have good ideas to get out, get them out. Wrapping them in crap
only makes people reject the ideas.
Or, if you like jungle analogies, the lion doesn't need to look like a
gazelle; the other gazelles can still smell the lion.


Many people are acting rational and are totally ignored. I consider
myself the missing link between the serious ones and the people. If I
went out today with 1000 copies of the jungle/banana fliers, I'd hand
them out in no time and they'd get read. People want to see whether the
lion will eat the banana, you know.

So you think being annoying is a good thing?
"Squeaking wheel" sort of thing?
Ah, read on:

But also remember this...

"Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand." -Mark Twain

By the way, his viewpoints are inspiring...

"Humor is the good natured side of a truth."

And...

"The political and commercial morals of the United States are not
merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet."

Being laughed at is a good thing if you intend to be laughed at.
Comedians aim to be laughed at.
But making yourself look silly while trying to move an agenda forward
doesn't help you any.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:27:05 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:55:17 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:53:17 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:

If we invaded Iraq for the oil, why are we going to so much pain and
expense to help them set up a real representative government, instead
of simply taking the oil?

Iraq was invaded to turn and keep the oil turned off.

We could have done that much more simply and cheaply by simply bombing
he oil infrastructure at the same time as bombing Saddam.
Doesn't wash.

That's temporary.

While true, the time it would take to get the infrastructure up again
would be years; then time for another strike.

You sell this to the world how? WMDs?

If, as so many say, we are already hated by the rest of the world, why
sell it at all? Just do it.
Also there is probably a fair number of other reasons for invading
including having a base of operations in the region and generally
causing instability, which increases prices further. A bombing then calm
for years then a bombing doesn't keep the prices as high as invasion and
instability every day.

Wow. A nice conspiracy, there. And, like most such, it requires no
actual evidence.

When SH was pumping oil out like crazy, oil was $19/bbl and gas was
~$1/gal as I recall.

And what was Iraq's percentage of OPEC's output?

It's total volume on the market that matters.

That's no answer.
How much oil was taken off the market by shutting down Iraq's oil?

aproximately 3E6 bpd. About equal to that of the world's 3rd largest
exporter.

And what percentage was that?
About 10% of the world's oil output.
And with India and China requiring more and more (more than that 10%),
the effect of the loss of Iraq's output on the world market can't be
the cause of the increased oil price.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"